Wednesday, November 5, 2014

In which I accuse Scott Youngren of not understanding 2LOT - updated 11/21/14

Part three (though the order doesn't matter) where I try to break down the general areas of Scott Youngren's ignorance. At first I thought he was only truly ignorant of Information Theory, 2LOT, and QM, but it appears I was wrong.



 Things Scott Youngren doesn’t understand

I wrote these responses a few days ago, before your last round of replies, so there may be some cross-talk in that I may present things that you have since addressed further. In no particular order:

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)

Virtually everything you say about 2LOT is wrong, so there simply isn’t time to correct all of your mistakes, but I’ll just take a representative sample from your article on the subject and the first couple of comments. (There are 100+ comments and by the time I got to your second comment there was already too much to correct in a reasonable amount of space.)

In the article you say, “Manifestations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are all around us. It is the reason dead things decay, cars rust, people age, sand castles crumble, etc., etc.” The “manifestations” are not examples of 2LOT, they are examples of increased entropy.

You also say “It must be emphasized that the point is NOT that the 2nd law of thermodynamics poses a problem to Darwinian evolution.” It doesn’t matter if Turek and Geisler were talking about evolution or abiogenesis, whatever they were addressing, it takes place in an open system. But 2LOT does not apply because they’re part of an open system. Every time you address this, you gloss over the whole “in a closed system” part like it’s some insignificant matter. That’s like taking the statement, “In the vacuum of space, nobody can hear you scream,” and saying it’s not true because we hear people scream all the time on roller coasters. Understand that 2LOT applies only to closed systems, and before you try to draw any conclusions from it (e.g., evolution or abiogenesis on earth) ask yourself if the system you’re examining (e.g., the earth) is closed. If it isn’t a closed system, then 2LOT does not apply. Period.

In the comments you repeatedly say things like, 
“Yes, the Earth is an “open system” which means that something from outside of the system can step in to counteract the disordering force of the second law of thermodynamics… As an illustration, let’s consider a junkyard: The disordering force of the 2nd law of thermodynamics acting on the old cars in a junkyard causes them to rust and breakdown (become less ordered).” 

 For the sake of argument, we can consider a junkyard to be very roughly a closed system, but even so, 2LOT does not “act” on things like cars, causing them to rust. What ‘acts” on the car’s metal is natural chemical processes like oxidation. 2LOT is not a “force” acting on anything; it is simply a conclusion drawn from the fact that there are many, many more possibilities for a “state function” to transition to a region (“region” does not mean “place”) of higher entropy than lower entropy.

So what is 2LOT? It can be expressed many ways, but they’re often variations of a theme:: “In a closed system, no process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion to work” Stating the same principle differently, “In a closed system, no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.” Stating the principle differently, “In a closed system, no process is possible in which the sole result of a chemical reaction is a decrease in entropy.” Another way of stating it would be, “In a closed system, the net result of a reaction cannot be a decrease in entropy.”

 Notice that key phrase “the sole result.” This is the crucial part you’re missing, and it makes all the difference. A chemical reaction or other process composed of sub-systems in which energy is exchanged will result in an INcrease in entropy in some areas/systems, and a DEcrease in entropy in others. But in a closed system, the net result will be an increase in entropy..

 Note, also, that a more accurate definition would be that entropy increases or stays the same. It doesn’t have to increase, and it can actually decrease; it’s just that the mathematical possibility of that is so low that we basically ignore it.

Consider an example. The formula for calculating entropy change of a system in thermal equilibrium is ΔS = q/T. (There are similar formulas for systems not in thermal equilibrium, but we’ll keep it simple.) I don’t know if the delta sign is going to be formatted correctly, so we could restate the formula as “change in S = q/T” or, “the change in entropy of a system (S) is equal to the heat absorbed by the system (q) divided by the absolute temperature (degrees Kelvin) of the system at the time.

So let’s imagine we take a cup full of water at 550 degrees Kelvin (58 Celsius). Then we place a cube of ice at 450 Kelvin (-42 Celsius) in it. Heat will flow from the hotter water to the colder ice. We can use our entropy equation to calculate the change in entropy for both the water and the ice cube.

Ice: Delta S = 1/450 = .0022 (this is an INcrease in entropy)
Water: Delta S = -1/550 = -.0018 (DEcrease in entropy. In the formula, q = heat absorbed by the system, but the water loses heat, so the result is a negative number.)
Delta S = .0022 – .0018 = .0004 BTUs.

So for every BTU of energy transferred from the water to the ice, we’ve INcreased the entropy of the ice, DEcreased the entropy of the water, and all of this resulted in a net INcrease of the entire system’s entropy by .0004.

In conclusion, your big misconceptions are:
– A failure to appreciate that 2LOT is simply not applicable in an open system. You say you get this, then you turn right around and apply it to sand castles and whatnot, but that’s a mistake.

– When this is pointed out you pretend to understand, but then move right on to your next blunder—thinking that 2LOT and entropy are the same thing.

– The idea that 2LOT is a force or otherwise causes anything, and can be “counteracted” by an open system;

– And the big one—not understanding that parts of systems can experience decreased entropy while other parts, and the system as a whole, experience an increase in entropy.

Let’s forget the whole open/closed system thing for a second and accept that the earth-sun system as effectively closed. Now if we add up every process on earth that decreases entropy (increases order, or where energy flows “uphill” to a hotter system), and add up every process on earth and the sun that increases entropy—that results in lost energy to heat, light, noise, or energy that is otherwise unavailable to perform work–the parts of the system that experience an increase in entropy greatly outweigh the parts of the system that experience a decrease in entropy. You have a bunch of pockets of decreasing entropy (e.g. plants using energy from the sun to grow, but even then the energy transfer is very inefficient) and a huge wasteland of increasing entropy. Most of the energy that comes to the earth from the sun is radiated right back out into space at a lower wavelength (less energy) and is lost and unavailable for work–it’s entropy.
Nov 6. Scott:
NC: Virtually everything you say about 2LOT is wrong, so there simply isn’t time to correct all of your mistakes, but I’ll just take a representative sample from your article on the subject and the first couple of comments. (There are 100+ comments and by the time I got to your second comment there was already too much to correct in a reasonable amount of space.)….. But 2LOT does not apply because they’re part of an open system.
.
Good job on your explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Open system, closed system, partially open system…..whatever you want. DOES THE INCREASE IN DISORDER (ENTROPY) OVER TIME APPLY ON EARTH? YES OR NO?!

If not, then why do sand castles crumble, why do dead things decay, why do cars rust? (etc).
Quibbling about the specifics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is another attempt to distract attention from the inadequacy of your arguments (a red-herring).

NC: Another way of stating it would be, “In a closed system, the net result of a reaction cannot be a decrease in entropy.”

Notice that key phrase “the sole result.” This is the crucial part you’re missing, and it makes all the difference. A chemical reaction or other process composed of sub-systems in which energy is exchanged will result in an INcrease in entropy in some areas/systems, and a DEcrease in entropy in others. But in a closed system, the net result will be an increase in entropy.
.
OK, then are you going to argue that the origin of life from non-living matter is the result of a energy exchange? Do I have that right? I don’t want to misrepresent you.

Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold describes the simplest living thing (the single-celled organism) in The Way of the Cell:
“…a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.”
Do you intend to argue that these “high-tech factories, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems” (etc) are caused by an energy transfer from the sun? Please clarify.

Further, why is it that we cannot place a dead and decomposing animal in the sunlight and expect it to re-compose? Why does an energy transfer from the sun not work here to counteract an increase in entropy? Why does the increase in entropy clearly apply in this case, but not with the origin of life from non-living matter? Please explain.

How can an energy transfer explain the simplest living thing, as described above?
Nov. 18: Non:
How can you say “good job explaining it” then with your very next question show that you still don’t understand it at all? Yes the earth experiences a net increase in entropy, but that doesn’t get you where you’re trying to go. The entire point of your article is that the increasing order of organic molecules into the first living things is made impossible by 2LOT (now you’re calling it entropy--bravo) but you’re missing the very basic fact that parts of systems experience decreased entropy while other parts, and the system as a whole, experience an increase in entropy. I broke that part out for you in the conclusion so you wouldn’t miss it, and you missed it anyway. It doesn’t matter that entropy increases in the sun-earth system, because entropy decreases in pockets of that system. You are trying to claim that 2LOT forces all (sub)-systems to increase in entropy, but that simply isn’t true. Once you face that fact, you have no article.

You complain that “quibbling about the specifics” of 2LOT is just an attempt to distract attention from “the inadequacy of [my] arguments.” Pointing out that you have a basic misunderstanding of terms is not quibbling about the specifics; it’s showing that you are not qualified to pontificate on the subject. You are making a very bold statement--that 2LOT is an “insurmountable” problem for abiogenesis—but it’s based on a lack of comprehension of one very simple concept where entropy and 2LOT are concerned. (Besides, my argument is that you don’t understand 2LOT, so pointing out basic things you get wrong is very adequate to make my point.)

Next you want to know if the origin of life from non-living matter is the result of an energy exchange. Energy would be necessary (though it doesn’t have to be from the sun), but a number of other things would need to be in place, as well, such as raw materials, a means of replication via self- or mutual-catalysis, etc…There is no single thing that we would say is “the cause.”


Energy is necessary, but not sufficient. As far as I can tell, this answers the rest of your questions, which are all variations on the same theme, “how can energy transfer explain…?” It all can’t, by itself. More is needed. Scientists do not say energy is all that’s needed, just that it’s one of the things necessary. This should answer your questions about decomposing animals, but if not, let me know and I’ll go into a little more detail.


Nov. 19 Scott:

Yes, entropy decreases in parts of the sun-earth system. But this is completely and utterly irrelevant. Such use of irrelevant tangential discussions is what I am referring to when I say that you are trying to use diversionary tactics (or “red-herring” arguments) to conceal the logical inadequacy of your stance.

As the above Real Clear Science article puts it, “Overall, the entropy of the universe always increases.” Please recall that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, but that the first life appeared on earth only about 3.5 billion years ago.


I recommend that you watch at least the first couple minutes of the above video. As the narrator puts it, “The universe tends towards disorder. …There is only one way, or at best a few ways for things to be arranged in an organized way. But there are nearly infinite other ways for those same things to be arranged. Simple rules of probability dictate that it is much more likely for stuff to be in one of the many disorganized states.”

As this video further explains, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that “any spontaneous process increases the disorder of the universe. Processes that don’t increase the disorder of the universe require work to be done in opposition to the disorder, and, in fact, are often impossible to achieve. The act of putting order into one system requires that other systems become disordered.”
So my question is this: What was it that performed the “work” necessary to go from a universe in which there was no life (just various arrangements of inorganic elements) 13.8 billions years ago, to a universe in which there IS life, 3.5 billion years ago? When constructing your answer, please consider the following description of the simplest living thing (the single cell), by Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold in The Way of the Cell:
…a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.
In order for the decrease in entropy in parts of the sun-earth system (which you refer to) to be of any relevance whatsoever, it would have to be the case that the order described above by Franklin M. Harold existed in the sun and was transferred to earth. Is this what you are arguing? Please clarify.


Nov 19 Non:
You ask if ”… the order [needed to produce living things] existed in the sun and was transferred to earth. Is this what you are arguing?” The answer depends on how you define work. Technically, work is ‘the <em>activity</em> of a force acting over a distance’ and energy is ‘the capacity to do work.’ But work is measured in units of energy, and the rate of using energy is the same as the rate of doing work, so we often use the terms somewhat interchangeably. So recognizing that the two terms are intertwined, we can say yes, the ability for more work on earth usually comes from the sun’s energy. Of course that isn’t absolute. For example, if we consider the possibility that life got started around white smokers—volcanic plumes deep in the oceans—then that energy would have come primarily from the earth’s core, not the sun. On the other hand, if we consider other possibilities of life starting in the shallow seas, then yes, that energy would have come mostly from the sun.
.
But the most important idea of your post is, ironically, what you call, “<em>completely and utterly</em> <strong>irrelevant</strong>. You say, “Yes, entropy decreases in parts of the sun-earth system.” However, the crux of your article is one simple idea, expressed in the concluding sentence: “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics performs the <em>very opposite</em> of the increase in order necessary to build life from non-living chemicals.” (Emphasis yours)
.
These sentences contradict each other. You start this response with the admission that the whole point of your 2LOT article is completely wrong! 2LOT could only be an “insurmountable” problem if it dictated that <strong>every single part</strong> of a system <strong>must always</strong> increase in entropy. Yet you’ve conceded that this isn’t the case at all, that “yes, entropy decreases in parts of the sun-earth system.”

[Note, not part of my response to him. That was surprisingly easy. I thought it would take a bunch of running down rabbit holes, but in only a few responses he admitted that organic molecules could form more complex molecules, eventually ending up with life, and none of it violated 2LOT because 2LOT allows parts of the system to decrease in entropy as long as the system as a whole increases in entropy. One thing I'm sure of is that he won't say, "OK, I was wrong about 2LOT," In fact we (Christian and non-Christian alike) all know that he'll never concede a single point in any of the topics we're discussing, but at this point he's basically done. I imagine he'll stick his fingers in his ears and start screaming, "Irrelevant!" with no explanation how his own direct contradiction of the crux of his article is irrelevant. That, and he'll probably just flat deny that the two sentences contradict each other.]   Nov 19, 2014. 1:37 PM PST.

Nov. 20: Scott

[Well, I called it.] 

No, there is no contradiction. Whether or not entropy can decrease in one part of the system because order is transferred from another part of the system is completely irrelevant. As the below Real Clear Science article mentions, “Overall, the entropy of the universe always increases.”

You cited the example of decreasing the entropy of water by increasing the entropy of ice. Is this how life on earth emerged? By a similar transfer of entropy between the earth and the sun?

PLEASE EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY WHAT INVALIDATES MY OVERALL POINT THAT LIFE COULD NOT HAVE EMERGED FROM NON-LIVE RANDOMLY BECAUSE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ALWAYS CAUSES AN OVERALL INCREASE IN ENTROPY!!

You say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to an open system, but you strangely overlook the fact that entropy (disorder) always increases overall in the system as a whole. Once again, as the Real Clear Science article that I linked to puts it, “Overall, the entropy of the universe always increases.”

So for an entropy transfer to explain the origin of life from non-living matter, the order necessary for life must have existed somewhere in the sun-earth system from the start. Is this what you are arguing? Please clarify so that I understand your stance.

You write, “Energy is necessary, but not sufficient. As far as I can tell, this answers the rest of your questions, which are all variations on the same theme, ‘how can energy transfer explain…?’ It can’t, by itself. More is needed. Scientists do not say energy is all that’s needed, just that it’s one of the things necessary. This should answer your questions about decomposing animals, but if not, let me know and I’ll go into a little more detail.”
OK, then please explain what caused life to emerge from non-life. You seem to think that you can just overlook this glaring explanatory gap and yet maintain a pretense of having a logically coherent stance.
In a previous comment, I asked you to explain what is the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” that Albert Einstein marveled and that he referred to as a “miracle which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”

THE COUNTER IS ON TWO (2) FOR THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS “HIGH DEGREE OF ORDERING OF THE OBJECTIVE WORLD” THAT EINSTEIN MARVELED AT AND WHICH HE REFERRED TO AS A “MIRACLE WHICH IS CONSTANTLY REINFORCED AS OUR KNOWLEDGE EXPANDS.”

READERS PLEASE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL AN ATHEIST PROVIDE A COHERENT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE “HIGH DEGREE OF ORDERING OF THE OBJECTIVE WORLD” THAT EINSTEIN MARVELED AT. ATHEISTS MUST AVOID AND DEFLECT FROM THIS QUESTION BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FURNISH A COHERENT ANSWER!

A LOGICALLY COHERENT EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK MUST PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS ORDER!

Non-Credenti, I have to note that you have backed yourself into a corner partly because you have declared that natural laws are descriptive and not prescriptive.

Part 2: Quantum Mechanics                                                               Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)